Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MadScientist

Time travelling

Recommended Posts

That depends on your definition of close. Time dialtion occurs with all particles that have velocity, its just the faster you go the more profound the effect becomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly scientifical is not a word. Secondly your explaination/graphics were based purely on conjecture which people tried very dilligently to explain to you was erroneous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did it based on the incomplete einsteins theory.

 

you havent say why am i wrong.

 

Firstly scientifical is not a word

I've asked many times to excuse my english.

so take it as "scientific way"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Particles can, and they're called tachyons, but they're not faster than c, they're faster than light when it is slowed down by an object in front of it, making it slower than c, and slower than 0.99999994% c, so a tachyon makes kinda like a sonic boom, but it emitts something called Cerenkov radiation when it passes the surrounding light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Particles can, and they're called tachyons, but they're not faster than c, they're faster than light when it is slowed down by an object in front of it, making it slower than c, and slower than 0.99999994% c, so a tachyon makes kinda like a sonic boom, but it emitts something called Cerenkov radiation when it passes the surrounding light.

 

Umm. As far as I know tachyons are particles that move faster than light, but cannot move at c or slower than c. They have also never been detected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grrrr, tachyons are bad. they mean a theory has problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grrrr, tachyons are bad. they mean a theory has problems.

I was under the impression they were a required consequence of said theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was under the impression they were a required consequence of said theory.

 

They're not required, infact I think it's highly, highly unlikely that they exist. Infact they violate some formulations of special relativty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps required is not the best word. I seem to recall MrL saying they were a convenient solution to something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was under the impression they were a required consequence of said theory.

 

which theory are you talking about? tachyons are regarded as things to get rid of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they just are. read some. an example........the10/11/26 dimensions depending which string theory. they were brought into play to get rid of tachyon frequencies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any other examples? Preferably ones that don't involve string, but theories that can be tested with repeatable results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they were brought into play to get rid of tachyon frequencies

 

And what exactly is a "tachyon frequency"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sayo: i'll let u use google

 

dave: it is the vibration pattern of a string that produces tachyon properties. sorry, i thought it was self explanitory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sayo: i'll let u use google

If I search for "tachyon problem" on google, I am just going to get a load of fiction.

 

You however describe tachyons as a problem to be got rid of, so then it follows that you must have specific examples in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i already gave you one and you didn't like it

 

edit: dave, what the hell was that? uh, maybe i used the wrong term. "vibrational pattern" will probably wok better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i already gave you one and you didn't like it

 

edit: dave' date=' what the hell was that? uh, maybe i used the wrong term. "vibrational pattern" will probably wok better.[/quote']

 

I believe it was a list of phrases used (or might be used) on Star Trek.

 

To me, this is a pretty good indication that really there is no such thing as a "tachyon frequency". The fact that there were only 10 results kindof confirms this for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i already gave you one and you didn't like it

A) A sample group of one is no good to anyone, even if you had explained what you were saying.

 

B) String theory is no more in a position to elbow out tachyons than tachyons are in a position to elbow out string theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it was a list of phrases used (or might be used) on Star Trek.

 

To me' date=' this is a pretty good indication that really there is no such thing as a "tachyon frequency". The fact that [i']there were only 10 results[/i] kindof confirms this for me.

 

 

it isn't from star trek. idk, it may have been on it. ask sayo.

 

i was refering to the vibration of the string that causes the properties of the particle. there is a quark pattern, photon pattern, ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.